College Students Ban "Pledge of Allegiance"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It's not for me to hold anyone, besides myself and my child, to any standard. I don't think it's any more difficult to be open to the rigid than it is to be open to someone who calls herself Moon Unit....even though I may not agree with many of their viewpoints.

linz

If someone lays down a caustic standard that adversely modifes people's lives, I DO hold them to that standard. If someone has a policy of passively allowing people to behave how they want within the law, without prejudice, they have created a standard that allows them a lot of wiggle room.

How can a preacher, Haggert, etc., preach out of one side of his mouth while he smokes the bologna pony out of the other side? Bill Clinton had a policy of allowing people's kinks, even in the military, so it is different and more acceptable for him to behave that way. Just a couple of examples, there are probably better ones.

This feels like the argument of the definition of, "hypocrite" we had a couple days ago. It is very hypocritical for Haggert to profess ever lasting life in hell for homosexuals, then be one himself. It is not hypocritical for Clinton to be a womanizer, as he has nevr taken a position against it or for an ultra-conservative family.

[Lindsey 0]

What you're talking about now is people being hypocritical. That's not the point. It certainly doesn't hold for all conservatives or all rednecks any more than it holds for liberals.

You say that people who are conservative are "rigid." Like many people here, a lot of them don't like gays, they think it's murder to have an abortion....and so on. I think it's pretty closed-minded of people (especially people who are self-professed to be "open-minded"--would that be hypocritical) to automatically dismiss these folks because of their political views.

Most of the time I think you can hold them to their own standard just fine, if that's really what you want to do. Most of 'em aren't running around doing what they preach against. Most of 'em aren't denouncing abortion while scheduling one for next week....

You want to be open-minded, but in reality you're only open to what's palatable to you.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Most of 'em aren't denouncing abortion while scheduling one for next week....

Well at leat not till their 14 year old finds out she is pregnant.... and gets spirited off somewhere to have the problem taken care of.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Most of 'em aren't denouncing abortion while scheduling one for next week....

Well at leat not till their 14 year old finds out she is pregnant.... and gets spirited off somewhere to have the problem taken care of.

You might be right....who knows? But I still find it amusing when a people who tout themselves as so open-minded end up being some of the more narrow and rigid folks around. It's easy to be open to what's acceptable to you.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lucky... 0]

You still refuse to address what I wrote:

If someone lays down a caustic standard that adversely modifes people's lives, I DO hold them to that standard. If someone has a policy of passively allowing people to behave how they want within the law, without prejudice, they have created a standard that allows them a lot of wiggle room.

How can a preacher, Haggert, etc., preach out of one side of his mouth while he smokes the bologna pony out of the other side? Bill Clinton had a policy of allowing people's kinks, even in the military, so it is different and more acceptable for him to behave that way. Just a couple of examples, there are probably better ones.

This feels like the argument of the definition of, "hypocrite" we had a couple days ago. It is very hypocritical for Haggert to profess ever lasting life in hell for homosexuals, then be one himself. It is not hypocritical for Clinton to be a womanizer, as he has nevr taken a position against it or for an ultra-conservative family.

So you're saying I'm closed-minded to the people who are closed-minded, right? No, I just hold tight-asses to the standards they legislate or attempt to legislate. This way, with any luck we will make people act a little less tight ass. IOW's, if we have rock fights all the time, there will be fewer and fewer people building their houses out of glass, get it? I realize you're dodging this issue, but as I'se written a million times, there IS A VERY DISTINCT AND JUSTIFYABLE DOUBLE-STANDARD FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO LEGISLATE THEIR TIGHT-ASS OPINIONS. I think the country just had enough of them too

[Lindsey 0]

So you're saying I'm closed-minded to the people who are closed-minded, right?

No. I don't think that conservatives are any more close-minded than liberals, on the whole. I think they're just closed to different things. The examples I used were "conservatives" and "rednecks." I didn't make the leap to "close-minded," or "rigid." The fact that you did illustrates the point.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 3,132]

This is, once again, a fine mountain set where a molehill should be.

Anyone should be free to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they choose to do so. Anyone should be free to NOT recite the Pledge if they don't want to. If you're an organization, decide on your own if you want to do it or not. If members don't like that decision - they are free to join ANOTHER organization. Which is what freedom's all about.

Personally, I don't require anyone say the Pledge of Allegiance at any meeting I convene. If someone really wanted to say it, I'd ask them to say it before the meeting started (they'd have to bring their own flag though.) So I suppose I am one of those evil people "banning the Pledge of Allegiance." I can live with that.

>And kids that are free and prosperous enough to be enjoying a
>college education certainly ought to respect the nation that allows them
>to achieve that, and just recite the Pledge.

Why don't they sing the Marine Hymn, or the "Army goes rolling along?" Kids that are free because of the efforts of those brave individuals should certainly respect the Armed Services that allow them to go to college.

Why don't they sing a song to the trustees, and pledge their support to those worthy individuals? After all, without the trustees, they would not be able to attend _any_ meetings at that college.

Or - an even better idea - why not let them do whatever they want? That way they demonstrate that the principles inherent in the US constitution - that they can pursue their happiness any way they see fit - are alive and well.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Why don't they sing a song to the trustees, and pledge their support to those worthy individuals? After all, without the trustees, they would not be able to attend _any_ meetings at that college.

Or - an even better idea - why not let them do whatever they want? That way they demonstrate that the principles inherent in the US constitution - that they can pursue their happiness any way they see fit - are alive and well.

Oganizations are called that for a reason. You can't join fraternal organizations and then play by your own rules in their playground.

Everyone who lives in this country should be taught, and made to understand the value and cost of freedom.
Dentigrating it may be a person's right, but it doesn't speak well of their rearing.

Eventually, thumbing your nose at the freedoms that allow you to do so, will come back and bite you in the ass.

[billvon 3,132]

>Oganizations are called that for a reason. You can't join fraternal
>organizations and then play by your own rules in their playground.

That's exactly right. If you don't like an organization - leave and join another, or start your own.

> Everyone who lives in this country should be taught, and made to
> understand the value and cost of freedom. Dentigrating it may be
> a person's right, but it doesn't speak well of their rearing.

I agree with you 100%. Keep in mind that that includes the freedom to say, or not say, what you choose.

>Eventually, thumbing your nose at the freedoms that allow you to do so,
>will come back and bite you in the ass.

Again, agreed. We've seen a lot of people ignoring (or even swinging hammers at) the freedoms we all enjoy lately. Freedoms not defended are freedoms we will lose.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

This feels like the argument of the definition of, "hypocrite" we had a couple days ago. It is very hypocritical for Haggert to profess ever lasting life in hell for homosexuals, then be one himself.

Only if Haggard said HE was going to Heaven.

Quote

It is not hypocritical for Clinton to be a womanizer, as he has nevr taken a position against it or for an ultra-conservative family.

Yeah, that whole "forsaking all others" thing is SOOOOoooo Puritanical, man....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Most of 'em aren't denouncing abortion while scheduling one for next week....

Well at leat not till their 14 year old finds out she is pregnant.... and gets spirited off somewhere to have the problem taken care of.

Thank Congress for that one.... she can go do it and the parents would never know....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Most of 'em aren't denouncing abortion while scheduling one for next week....

Well at leat not till their 14 year old finds out she is pregnant.... and gets spirited off somewhere to have the problem taken care of.

You might be right....who knows? But I still find it amusing when a people who tout themselves as so open-minded end up being some of the more narrow and rigid folks around. It's easy to be open to what's acceptable to you.

linz

Excellent point. So many who talk about embracing diversity and accepting other's differences seem to be incredibly intolerant. It's easy to take a non-judgemental stance with a Taliban-like government on the other side of the globe. It's a completely different matter, accepting differences in your own community.

Regarding this story, I wonder if the people who enacted this ban did so in an upfront and honest manner. Did they behave in an ethical and responsible way? Or was this a deceptive, backdoor manuever?

If was all on the up and up, then wait until the next election. If it was a cheap blindside, then do all you can to have them removed.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

If someone lays down a caustic standard that adversely modifes people's lives, I DO hold them to that standard. If someone has a policy of passively allowing people to behave how they want within the law, without prejudice, they have created a standard that allows them a lot of wiggle room.

How can a preacher, Haggert, etc., preach out of one side of his mouth while he smokes the bologna pony out of the other side? Bill Clinton had a policy of allowing people's kinks, even in the military, so it is different and more acceptable for him to behave that way. Just a couple of examples, there are probably better ones.

This feels like the argument of the definition of, "hypocrite" we had a couple days ago. It is very hypocritical for Haggert to profess ever lasting life in hell for homosexuals, then be one himself. It is not hypocritical for Clinton to be a womanizer, as he has nevr taken a position against it or for an ultra-conservative family.

I get the impression that a lot of liberals don't have a problem with behavior that the mainstream considers sleazy, repulsive and (generally) unacceptable. The only real issue is whether or not someone who has committed one of these forms of smarmy behavior has spoken against that behavior.

For example, being a sexual predator (think Clinton) is okay as long as you don't speak out against sexual assault.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

This is, once again, a fine mountain set where a molehill should be.

I was waiting to see if someone would finally say this before I reluctantly hit the "Reply" button.

Quote

Anyone should be free to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they choose to do so. Anyone should be free to NOT recite the Pledge if they don't want to. If you're an organization, decide on your own if you want to do it or not. If members don't like that decision - they are free to join ANOTHER organization. Which is what freedom's all about.

Egg-xactly.

I never had to say the pledge in college. I'm quite certain it wasn't officially banned, though. The last time I probably said the pledge was in elementary school; even then it was optional to say "Under God" or not. I don't believe my middle or high schools said it, either. And I could be mistaken, but I think they provided a flag service before school every morning. They'd raise the flag and I think those who attended in the mornings would gather around and say the pledge or sing the national athem or something.

I was always of the frame of mind--call me spoiled--that I didn't need to show up to school 15 minutes earlier to pledge my allegiance to the flag. I love my country. I support it and "pledge my allegiance" to it in many other ways.

I believe in God, so frankly the phrase doesn't bother me in that regard. I also disagree with pushing one's beliefs on another. I don't think that's what is happening with the pledge, however. I think the phrase is more out of respect for many of the founding fathers who did believe in God and who came here for the freedom to practice their own religious beliefs. I think it's more out of respect for them and what they were fighting for--freedom to all to practice whatever religious belief (even the absence thereof), and a big etc.

Say it. Don't say it. But ban it?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[ryoder 1,590]

Two things have always fascinated me about the POA:

1. How was the US able to survive without it that first 116 years until it was written in 1882?

2. How was the US able to keep from slipping into devil worship until the phrase "under God" was added to the POA in 1952?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

How was the US able to survive without it that first 116 years until it was written in 1882?

116 years?

In the early years of this country's history, church services were held in the House of Representatives and many states had official state religions. It seems like Christianity used to be much more a part of our society.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

This feels like the argument of the definition of, "hypocrite" we had a couple days ago. It is very hypocritical for Haggert to profess ever lasting life in hell for homosexuals, then be one himself.

Only if Haggard said HE was going to Heaven.

Quote

It is not hypocritical for Clinton to be a womanizer, as he has nevr taken a position against it or for an ultra-conservative family.

Yeah, that whole "forsaking all others" thing is SOOOOoooo Puritanical, man....

*YAWN*

I'm going to take judical notice on this one, I don;t have a quote or a sound bite, but I think he professed his holliness and place in heaven.

Quote

Yeah, that whole "forsaking all others" thing is SOOOOoooo Puritanical, man....

Making a promise not to fool around in your marriage is FAR different than denouncing others for doing it in a judgmental way.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

If someone lays down a caustic standard that adversely modifes people's lives, I DO hold them to that standard. If someone has a policy of passively allowing people to behave how they want within the law, without prejudice, they have created a standard that allows them a lot of wiggle room.

How can a preacher, Haggert, etc., preach out of one side of his mouth while he smokes the bologna pony out of the other side? Bill Clinton had a policy of allowing people's kinks, even in the military, so it is different and more acceptable for him to behave that way. Just a couple of examples, there are probably better ones.

This feels like the argument of the definition of, "hypocrite" we had a couple days ago. It is very hypocritical for Haggert to profess ever lasting life in hell for homosexuals, then be one himself. It is not hypocritical for Clinton to be a womanizer, as he has nevr taken a position against it or for an ultra-conservative family.

I get the impression that a lot of liberals don't have a problem with behavior that the mainstream considers sleazy, repulsive and (generally) unacceptable. The only real issue is whether or not someone who has committed one of these forms of smarmy behavior has spoken against that behavior.

For example, being a sexual predator (think Clinton) is okay as long as you don't speak out against sexual assault.

I love that argument. It's the Puritans all over again. They made themselves SO obnoxious with their intolerance and their attempts to impose their ways on everyone else in Britain that eventually they were asked to shut-up or leave. But their version (which is taught to kindergarteners across the US) is that the Pilgrims left on account of religious intolerance in Britain.

Sorry, we're wise to that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Yeah, that whole "forsaking all others" thing is SOOOOoooo Puritanical, man....

Do you know whether or not that statement was included in his vows, or are you just assuming?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

I get the impression that a lot of liberals don't have a problem with behavior that the mainstream considers sleazy, repulsive and (generally) unacceptable. The only real issue is whether or not someone who has committed one of these forms of smarmy behavior has spoken against that behavior.

For example, being a sexual predator (think Clinton) is okay as long as you don't speak out against sexual assault.

I love that argument. It's the Puritans all over again. They made themselves SO obnoxious with their intolerance and their attempts to impose their ways on everyone else in Britain that eventually they were asked to shut-up or leave. But their version (which is taught to kindergarteners across the US) is that the Pilgrims left on account of religious intolerance in Britain.

Sorry, we're wise to that.

What does your post have to do with mine?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I get the impression that a lot of liberals don't have a problem with behavior that the mainstream considers sleazy, repulsive and (generally) unacceptable. The only real issue is whether or not someone who has committed one of these forms of smarmy behavior has spoken against that behavior.

For example, being a sexual predator (think Clinton) is okay as long as you don't speak out against sexual assault.

I love that argument. It's the Puritans all over again. They made themselves SO obnoxious with their intolerance and their attempts to impose their ways on everyone else in Britain that eventually they were asked to shut-up or leave. But their version (which is taught to kindergarteners across the US) is that the Pilgrims left on account of religious intolerance in Britain.

Sorry, we're wise to that.

What does your post have to do with mine?

What did yours have to do with the PoA?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

but you gotta admit, the same people who are so open to all the folks you mention aren't usually nearly so kind to rednecks and "conservatives." It's still a matter of which viewpoints your gonna be open to.

Isn't it kinda logical for a person who believes in personal freedoms to be opposed to those people who think they shouldn't have those freedoms?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[NCclimber 0]

I notice you frequently make irrelevant posts and when called on them, you reply with more irrelevant posts.

I wonder why???

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

but you gotta admit, the same people who are so open to all the folks you mention aren't usually nearly so kind to rednecks and "conservatives." It's still a matter of which viewpoints your gonna be open to.

Isn't it kinda logical for a person who believes in personal freedoms to be opposed to those people who think they shouldn't have those freedoms?

Blues,
Dave

You mean like Freedom of Speech? The right to say things that others may find particularly offensive? You know... all the anti-Bush rhetoric and the negative steroetypes that regularly get pinned on his supporters.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

but you gotta admit, the same people who are so open to all the folks you mention aren't usually nearly so kind to rednecks and "conservatives." It's still a matter of which viewpoints your gonna be open to.

Isn't it kinda logical for a person who believes in personal freedoms to be opposed to those people who think they shouldn't have those freedoms?

Blues,
Dave

You mean like Freedom of Speech? The right to say things that others may find particularly offensive? You know... all the anti-Bush rhetoric and the negative steroetypes that regularly get pinned on his supporters.

Yes, though freedom of speech is just one example.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)